As city administrators exchange ideas with Broadway Plaza owners for a long-term development agreement, the City Council Tuesday night gave some direction to its negotiators.
Macerich, owner of most of the 25-acre plaza, has listed more than a dozen potential downtown improvements it could finance as part of plans for "several million dollars" in payment to the city for the rights in a development agreement, including:
- traffic claiming flashing crosswalks.
- crosswalk treatments and improvements across from Broadway Plaza connection areas.
- monuments and fountains.
- public art program.
(For the full list, see attachment 9 of the city's staff report on the Broadway Plaza Long-Range Master Plan.)
Council member Kristina Lawson said the funding from the developers could go to a larger project, such as "seed funding" for a downtown plaza in the "traditional downtown" — across Mount Diablo Boulevard from Broadway Plaza. This would contribute to the goal of connecting Broadway Plaza to the traditional downtown, as emphasized by council members and members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Commission that reviewed Macerich proposals.
Macerich is seeking a 10-year development agreement with the city coupled with the option of two five-year extensions if the developer shows it is meeting goals to be defined in the agreement. For instance, an attorney representing Macerich, Cecily Barclay, told the council suggested that standard could be to grant the extension after 10 years if the developer showed the project was 80 percent underway.
Mayor Bob Simmons said he felt a 10 plus 5 plus 5 was too much. He said he favored a 15-year maximum. "Fifteen is more than ample for this," he said.
Macerich presented an alternative with all retail development and a second alternative with mixed retail and residential at Broadway Plaza. Either alternative would employ a new multi-level parking garage, much of it underground, in the middle of the plaza property, requiring the tearing up of the paved Broadway Plaza street that runs through the property now.
Simmons said the Macerich proposal did not spell out details about the residential alternative: "I have to be convinced that this has some merit and right now I don't see the merit. It makes it more complex. I don't know that it adds value."
Mayor Pro Tem Kish Rajan asked the developers to push ideas harder to effect the connectivity of the two downtowns, and synergistic ideas for traffic and parking for the next generation with less reliance on the automobile.
The current plan asks the city to formally vacate most of the Broadway Plaza street, amounting to 53,000 square feet.
Council member Gary Skrel said the street abandonment should extend all the way north to Mount Diablo Boulevard, adding another 17,000 square feet that should be used as green space.
Parking is not an issue in your mind BECAUSE you've "been going there for decades." You also show a certain commitment to get to work, I presume. I don't think parking is intended solely for the knowledgable and committed. In a city that increasingly bills itself as a DESTINATION, for the much less informed visitor, this is particularly problematic. This is evidenced by the fact that even much of WC doesn't share your knowledge, commitment, and level of satisfaction -- as city-wide polls consistently rank lack of parking as the #1 or #2 issue. You seem to share the perspective of WC staff when they proposed three stories for the S. Locust St. garage and told surrounding property owners: "This will fulfill your needs 70% of the time." If you only had a 7 in 10 chance of finding parking in proximity to where you'd like to shop -- would you shop there or simply use a more convenient option elsewhere? How useful is 70% parking? In this sport -- shoppers, visitors, etc. have competitive expectations -- line of sight, proximity, parking certainty, etc. Solutions that require intimate knowledge, commitment, and legs <50 really don't address the concerns expressed in city-wide polling. You probably view the $13 Million of commercial parking for Civic Park as money well spent, since you might be willing to regularly use it. I view it as a complete waste, however, because I know 95+% of the public would rarely even consider it.
Maybe this is a perception issue and I can't speak for the supposedly "95%" of the public, but I have noticed that in visiting other towns and cities in the area - something I do mutliple times a month - Walnut Creek by comparison is a parking Mecca. I have travelled to these destinations, whether it is Berkeley, SF, Palo Alto, Marin, San Jose, not to mention Danville and Lafayette, for almost 30 years and I can tell you that Walnut Creek is light years ahead of the rest of the Bay Area with parking availability.
There are two facets, here. One is WC as a "destination" for visitors -- here, the Berkeley - San Jose cities you mention are relevant. We do have good "availability" -- just as Civic Park provides "available" parking. But, is it competitive -- does it result in a stress-free experience for the less knowledgable and committed? Is it readily visible / obvious? Is it proximate? And so on. The other facet is competitiveness with surrounding cities, such as Danville and Lafayette. This is the one that most concerns me because this is the one that relates to WC resident satisfaction and identification with downtown. This is a mixed bag. For instance, I would probably hit WC over anything in western Lafayette; if there is something in eastern Lafayette required, I'd prefer that option to WC ... Danville is just a completely different environment, shopping experience. The ones that would concern me more for the rank-and-file Walnut Creeker are Pleasant Hill and Concord, which you didn't mention. Parking has been a fixation here for well over 35 years. I join people like Primo Facchini in thanking you for noticing. It obviously needs improvement, however.
I know Berkeley and shop in Lafayette and Danville and what you say is untrue. I never have difficulty finding parking in these areas. Difficult in Berkeley, yes, but I always am able to find a place.
I think it is just an idea at this point -- no site proposed. During the Mt. Diablo Specific Plan there was a suggestion, for instance, to put a pocket park behind Rochester Sport on Commercial Lane... I'd assume we're moving on to something a bit better than a remote 15'x50' patch of grass, however. However, I'd also assume it will be much more modest than your inquiry. The owner of the Scott Valley Bank site you inquired about has been building steam for years to get his humongous mixed-use project going. CA Blvd is zoned for greater heights and this makes it too expensive. With land values being what they are, this is a very expensive proposition -- anything meaningful will probably break 8 figures. Land values fall a bit as one moves north from Broadway. Conversely, you'd want it as far south as possible, to be in the heart of the action. In other words, your Bonanza N-S positioning, +/- 1/2 a block, looks good. To think about where the site actually might be, you need to look at where property is less fully utilized = remotely affordable. Sites that have signficant parking lots would be prime targets. Banks come immediately to mind -- Wells Fargo, Mechanics, etc. Also, if part of Commercial Lane gets folded-in, this helps. There also might be opportunity between Main and Broadway, as with B of A. This proposal is in its infancy and has a long, long, way to go. You know as much as anyone, at this point.
I realize a downtown plaza is unlikely to happen but I like to keep picking away at it. And I know land is expensive so if anything happens it will be small and remote. During the Mt Diablo-Locust Specific Plan discussions I had written and spoken in support of using the city-owned parking lot beside La Fogata at Main and Mt Diablo as a park knowing full well the city would never do it. That would have been a nice connector between Broadway Plaza and the Traditional Downtown. Everything needs to be maximum square footage and built out to the corners of major intersections (e.g. Neiman Marcus) so visual connectivity is near impossible. I hope the city council figures something out on a downtown plaza but it may be well into the future. I still fantasize about closing a major downtown street and making it pedestrian.
I agree. For those whose WC appreciation transcends shopping and dining, it would've been a nice touch to retain the historic perspective of the 4 corners and La Fogata / The Sherbourne Bldg. It's about balance and those who promote ANYTHING aside from the incessant shopping mantra deserve a bone, once and awhile. I appreciate the need to make money but, it is sad. The problem, as you suggest, is that anything that is done requires long-term planning and once zoning or building privileges at a site have been granted, they are seldom (never) reversed. To do otherwise would only expose the city to expensive litigation. It's a one-way street, heavily biased in favor of those who like to build or, more importantly, make a living at building. This gets messy when one is looking for a site to not build, obviously. As to closing down a street, I reflect back upon a meeting about a decade ago involving the DBA, Skrel, and Abrams. The latter two were looking into a downtown parking policy, as I recall. Anyway, everyone had a good laugh when I mentioned closing off Main -- not a particularly useful thoroughfare, affording no parking garage access -- and running Clydedales down the street, or electric golf carts, or anything compatable with foot traffic. How ironic this is EXACTLY what Broadway is now proposing? It sounds better when Macerich says it? I think the city is on the right track with Commercial Lane and the development of paseos in the area.
Regarding line of site parking. That exists in suburban malls and Wal-Mart, places that have no charm. The holiday season is the exception but that applies to every shopping area.